Four immigration enforcement measures we can all agree on — even under Trump
The argument here is a familiar one in Washington: don't let your opposition to the man blind you to the merits of the policy. It's worth taking seriously, because reflexively opposing everything does tend to erode credibility. If an enforcement measure is genuinely reasonable, saying no just because it came from this administration makes it harder to be heard when something truly objectionable comes along.
I'd want to know which four measures the author has in mind, because that's where the rubber meets the road. Some enforcement basics, like targeting employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers or prioritizing criminals over families, have historically drawn support from both parties. But the devil is always in the details, and past bipartisan agreements have collapsed over implementation.
The harder question is whether the current political environment allows for that kind of selective engagement. Opponents may worry that agreeing on anything creates cover for the broader agenda. That's a legitimate concern, but it's also true that a total refusal to engage leaves the field to the administration's framing. Finding a few points of genuine agreement isn't surrender, though it takes a clear head to know where to draw the line.